[Moon-Net] Are 73s needed for a "valid" contact?

Conrad PA5Y g0ruz at g0ruz.com
Mon Nov 21 10:51:04 CET 2016


Well actually the thread has been somewhat hijacked. The original poster asked if 73 was required for a complete QSO. 

The emphatic answer is NO this is well documented and not really worthy of further debate.

I then gave a few examples of real world EME behaviour to help illustrate how things work along with a message to listen and observe and figure it out for oneself.

On the subject of the logger and its use in the contest if 73 is not required for a QSO then passing thankyou messages after a contact is logged is irrelevant. 

The only competitive advantage that I gained by using the logger during the contest was for allowed frequency announcements and as an aid to staying awake!

I will take these issues up with the ARRL privately before submitting my logs. If I am disqualified for sending tnx wishes on the logger AFTER a qso is logged then so be it. 

I did the contest to see what my station is capable of, I have answered that to my own satisfaction. 

Final score 206 x 84 = 1730400

Regards 

Conrad PA5Y 

On 21 November 2016 04:51:46 CET, Paul Andrews <w2hro.fn20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>Stephen,  The obvious difference is that sending 73 via JT65 consumes a
>full 60 seconds.  With voice (SSB/FM) a full ARRL valid QSO exchange
>including "TNX 73" will take less than 15 seconds.  During normal EME
>QSOs
>I enjoy the slow pace of 60 second periods.  I do my logging during 4
>minutes of RO/RRR/73/73.  During a contest waiting for 73 is
>unnecessary.
>The question becomes can you send 73 via the logger.  ARRL says no.
>
>73 - Paul - W2HRO
>
>On Nov 20, 2016 9:37 PM, "Stephen Hanselman" <eme at kc4sw.com> wrote:
>
>> You know i think both sides here have valid points but let's look at
>a
>> typical Field Day, arguably the penultimate ARRL contest, SSB
>exchange.
>> CQ field day k6...
>> K6... k3/// 3A MD
>> K3/// k6... QSL 1B SCV
>> 73  good luck
>> QRZ Field Day K6...
>>
>> How does this relate to our digital format?  Basically they are the
>same
>> "format" a minimalist passing of identifiers, location, and
>confirmation of
>> the contact with the calling station passing a 73 and the called
>station
>> just resuming his(her) CQ'ing.
>>
>> I submit if it's OK for Field Day it's OK for our contest.
>>
>> 73's
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Hanselman, KC4SW
>>
>> Datagate Systems, LLC
>>
>> 3107 North Deer Run Road #24
>>
>> Carson City, Nevada, 89701
>>
>> (775) 882-5117 office
>>
>> (775) 720-6020 mobile
>>
>> s.hanselman at datagatesystems.com
>>
>> www.datagatesystems.com
>>
>> a Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business
>>
>> DISCLAIMER:
>> This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for use by the
>> addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
>> proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, any
>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any
>attachments
>> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>please
>> immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and all
>copies
>> and printouts of this e-mail and any attachments.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Nov 20, 2016, at 17:46, Edward R Cole <kl7uw at acsalaska.net> wrote:
>>
>> Regarding 2m-eme use, I've gotten use to the CQing station sending
>RRR and
>> calling station adding 73 after seeing that.  Most stations do not
>send 73
>> after seeing 73 from the other station during contests as resuming CQ
>> pretty much tells that the contact is completed.
>>
>> I found calling CQ is way more productive of moon time for me.  I
>have
>> enough callers to run 1-2 hours continuous operating at five minutes
>per
>> contact.   That can accumulate 12-15 contacts.  Calling stations that
>are
>> CQing often ends up waiting 30-45 minutes in a stack of callers for
>your
>> turn to make the contact.  This works better at end of WE when less
>> stations are active (not so many pileups).
>>
>> I will never achieve 200 contacts as my moon-window starts 9-hours
>after
>> EU MR.  Too often activity drops at EU MS when I have been operating
>only
>> 3-4 hours.  I quit at 3am (1230utc) today and slept to 10am
>(1900utc).  But
>> good thing I QRV for an hour at 1900 as I made three more contacts
>(missed
>> W7MEM and UN9L).  2030 local noise starting* made further eme
>operating
>> impossible so quit.  Might have worked another 8-10 until MS at
>2300utc.
>> * plus there were birdies every 300-Hz all across the band with maybe
>two
>> small gaps.
>>
>> I find running 1-min sequencing is needed sometimes with weak
>stations (or
>> when battling noise) in contests; 30-second cycles would speed
>contact
>> rate.  I am running the MAP65-BC2/version but not activating the
>quicker
>> rate as not being used.  Perhaps the adoption of QRA by more people
>would
>> make shorter sequences workable, but I get what Conrad is saying (I
>do not
>> have that problem as nearest 2m-eme station is 1300km in BC).
>>
>> Perhaps running 30-min first day and 1-min on second day of contest
>would
>> offer a good mix?  Activity is 75% higher in the first day.  Everyone
>would
>> need to agree with for it to be workable.
>>
>> 73, Ed - KL7UW
>>
>> At 01:54 PM 11/20/2016, Paul Andrews wrote:
>>
>> Conrad,
>>
>> In my mind, your 200+ QSOs were a spectacular achievement.  Saying
>thank
>> you on the logger didn't make those QSOs happen.
>>
>> The ARRL Rules maybe dated and could be reviewed.  QRA64 with
>embedded
>> signal reports make a logger thank yous and signal report exchanges
>less
>> necessary.
>>
>> I know your opinion on JT65B2.  I mentioned that just to get a rise
>out
>> of you.  Yes - Let's have a JT65B2 Contest.  :)
>>
>> I'm looking forward to future "fast" Digital EME protocols that
>permit
>> text message like rag chew.  Less talk on the logger.   Even EME
>based
>> group discussions should be possible.
>>
>> Arthur Clarke - "The only thing that we can be sure of the future is
>that
>> it will be absolutely fantastic."
>>
>> 73 - Paul - W2HRO
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Conrad PA5Y <g0ruz at g0ruz.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well if the posting of thankyou AFTER the contact is logged is not
>allowed
>> then my 200+ QSOs will be invalid and I will be most cross as the
>action
>> has absolutely no bearing on the QSO. The contact is logged and is
>history
>> as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>
>> It certainly needs to be cleared up and next time preferably BEFORE
>the
>> contest not at the 11th hour.
>>
>>
>> ........assistance may not be used to facilitate the completion of
>any
>> contact once the contact has commenced. This means such assistance
>may not
>> be used to convey receipt or non-receipt of any required element of a
>> contact or to request a repeat of any required element of a contact.
>>
>>
>> That seems clear enough to me. Thanks are not a required element of
>the
>> contact just polite.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Conrad PA5Y
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20/11/2016 23:06, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
>>
>> Hello Conrad and others interested in this thread.....I am NOT an
>ARRL
>> rules guru, but I thought that the posting of any contact information
>was
>> prohibited during the contests.  You certainly cannot post, "I hear
>your
>> RO, so I am sending RRR"....or anything like that at all.  I know
>that we
>> all agree on this.
>>
>> Others have said that the posting of "thank you" after the contact is
>> complete is not allowed, because it tells the other station that you
>are
>> complete(which is a piece of contact information).  I have not
>posted the
>> traditional "thank you" whenever I was in a contest, because I
>believed
>> that it was not allowed(but I may be very wrong on this).  During
>casual
>> operating, I try to post a "thank you" so the other station knows
>that we
>> are done AND so that he can see his signal strength, etc.
>>
>> It would be nice if we could get a definite ruling on this.  Maybe
>> Bart-W9JJ could study this carefully and let us know what we can and
>cannot
>> do.Â
>>
>> The rules for the CW WW VHF contest are slightly different from the
>ARRL's
>> rules, so we have another issue there.Â
>>
>> On this last leg of the EME contest, I had a guest
>operator(Phil-W5RP) at
>> the helm of the 2M station.  He worked about 100 stations for the
>two
>> days.  That is pretty good for a new operator.  I thank everyone
>for
>> calling and working him.  It was a great experience for him and I
>know
>> that he enjoyed it a lot.  He certainly got a wonderful introduction
>to
>> WSJT and pileups on 2M.  It will be a while before he gets his home
>> station running, but when that happens, we will have another FB
>station and
>> operator on 2M.
>>
>> 73 Marshall K5QE
>>
>>
>> On 11/20/2016 3:23 PM, Conrad PA5Y wrote:
>>
>>
>> The 73 are not required for a valid QSO. However they are useful as
>an
>> indicator that all is well.
>>
>>
>> During the contest if I call CQ I prefer the station that I am
>working to
>> send 73 in response to my RRR even if just for a few seconds to let
>me know
>> that they are happy. This happens a lot during the contest and is
>very
>> thoughtful.  If my QSO partner is participating in the contest and
>are
>> loud with me it is completely unnecessary. Instead of responding to
>these
>> 73 with 73 I just call CQ again or the next station if there is a
>queue. If
>> my QSO partners are on the logger I will thank them for the QSO but
>only
>> AFTER the QSO is complete. It is perfectly legitimate to do this once
>you
>> have received RRR.
>>
>> DXpeditions prefer their QSO partner to send 73 after they have sent
>RRR
>> just so that they know to move on to the next station.
>>
>>
>> For normal everyday QSOs outside of contests and Dxpeditions 73 are
>polite
>> and should be used unless you are running out of moon :-)
>>
>>
>> A little watching and listening will soon having you developing your
>own
>> feel for how things are done.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Conrad PA5Y
>>
>> On 20/11/2016 21:55, Bob Atkins wrote:
>>
>>
>> During the EME contest one station I contacted suggested that the
>final
>> "73" wasn't required, just the exchangeable of "Call signs and
>locators",
>> "OOO", "RO" and "RRR".  Is that generally accepted to be the case?
>Usually
>> at least one or both stations send "73", but is this actually a
>requirement
>> for a valid QSO (as least as defined by the contest).Â
>>
>>
>> The "call, locator and OOO" confirms reception of "callls +
>locator"Â in
>> one direction and the "RO" confirms reception of that report by the
>first
>> station. "RRR" then confirms reception of that information. 
>Technically,
>> isn't that all that is needed?
>>
>>
>> I'm not suggestion that dropping the final 73 (or exchange of 73s) is
>a
>> good idea. I just don't want to claim a contact where the other
>stations
>> didn't send the first "73" and suggested it wasn't required.
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> KA1GT
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
>> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
>> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
>> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
>> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>>
>> 73, Ed - KL7UW
>> http://www.kl7uw.com
>>     "Kits made by KL7UW"
>> Dubus Mag Business e-mail:
>>     dubususa at gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at
>> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.pe1itr.com/pipermail/moon-net/attachments/20161121/c728cab4/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Moon-net mailing list